On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:12:53AM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:41:46 -0600, Warner Losh writes: > >It's called a transition period for a reason. The historical use has = > >permeated itself into many places, not all of which are obvious. > > It would seem that leaving FreeBSD make as make, for the transition > period and installing bmake as bmake, would cause the least disruption > to everyone. This was the original proposal presented at BSDCan in 2011. > > FreeBSD make already grok's the :tl and :tu modifiers, > so it is quite simple for the two to coexist for some period. > > The only reason we are talking about having to frob ports etc now, > is a new requirement introduced this year (by yourself I think) > that bmake replace make in base rather than allow coexistence. > > If we are all happy to go back to the original plan, we can ease the > concerns of the folk you speak of? > > The only downside is we wait a few more years for major build improvments.
Can system build, initiated by make, call bmake immediately ? I suppose it could be fine even to error out if make is typed instead of bmake for src/.
pgp1H8SYjf8vh.pgp
Description: PGP signature